Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to comment now. It is an absolute pleasure for me to come into this House every time and I do not say that because I am a former Senator. I think it was Senator Ruane who referred to me as a Senator. I accept the title of "Senator" even though I was elected one in 2002. She referred to us as "lowly Senators" and sought somebody to champion the Bill.I must disagree vehemently with the Senator on that point. The Upper House is a really important place for debate.

While I acknowledge we are a wee bit apart at this point in terms of the Government amendments, I will reiterate and rationalise what we are trying to do. There was a collective call for momentum to try to reach our destination. For what it is worth, when I give my word as a politician, I stand by it. I appreciate the comments from Senators on my decision regarding history. That was something I committed to doing in my first month in the job and to which I gave a great deal of thought. I was advised to go a certain way but I kept my ear to the ground and there were plenty of people in this House willing to give me their view, for which I thank them.

There are four Government amendments, which seek to address the two main concerns we have regarding these proposals. The first concern is that they would mean that I, as Minister, would effectively be dictating to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in its area of functionality. Our second concern is that by embedding these provisions in legislation, we would be prescribing a subject for the first time. Maths, Irish and English are not prescribed through legislation. What is being proposed here represents a departure and we have concerns in that regard. I received political proposals from different quarters asking me to legislate to ensure that history would be a mandatory subject on the junior cycle curriculum. I did not like it and it is not in my nature to legislate for a particular subject. In the end, the decision we made in regard to history was to move it from optional to mandatory. In fact, we spent six months trying to find a word that would offer a middle ground between optional and mandatory. We all have our opinions on the words "compulsory" and "mandatory" and giving direction in that regard. As Donegal men, Senator Mac Lochlainn and I do not like being told what to do. However, having not found a middle ground between optional and mandatory, it seemed to me that I had no choice but to go for the latter. I feel it was the right thing to do.

Senator Kelleher wrote to me, once my decision was announced, asking that I review all the damage that has been inflicted on our society by ourselves down through the years in the context of society's tolerance of homophobia, prejudice towards members of the Traveller community, racism, sexism etc. The list goes on. We are trying to repair much of that damage and I am seeking out the best possible vehicle to do so. I again give my word that there will be momentum in bringing things forward. I would love to be in a position to say that we can go to the next step immediately but we will have to see how things go with the voting on the amendments. To reiterate, the legal advice is that the Bill as it stands would create a situation whereby the only subject area prescribed by law in the jurisdiction would be Traveller culture and history, thereby granting it a different status compared with all other subjects.

One of the things the inspectorate is always keen to point out to me is that its specific function is to inspect teaching and learning. It is intended, in line with the monitoring of the implementation of other Department of Education and Skills policies in schools, that the current school self-evaluation process and the evaluation visits by the inspectorate will provide the basis by which implementation of the principles of the Bill would be evaluated. I understand the concern that if something is not sufficiently embedded in law, it will become a mere conversation piece. As we all know, an election is coming up, whenever it may be, and there could soon be somebody else in my role. However, the point I wish to emphasise is that in order to make things happen, one has to give direction. In regard to history, I have put together a direction to the NCCA on what I want to see happening. It is up to the NCCA to build that into the future place of history in the junior cycle curriculum. My ambition and motivation are to ensure, whatever comes out at the end of this legislation, that we just get on with it and take all the issues into account. I was at a literacy and numeracy event this morning where there was discussion about the maths curriculum, trying to make it relevant and set the context. It is not just about sitting down in silos doing algebra, the theorem of Pythagoras or multiplication, division and subtraction in isolation, but how all of those aspects are relevant to the entire curriculum.

In this particular subject area, as Senator Higgins pointed out, there are so many aspects, including geography, the nomadic movement of people and the particular history of the Traveller community. It is not just about one prescriptive area. A point I wish to emphasise is that the people who are designing the curriculum in the primary sector and the people undertaking the leaving certificate review are considering, as part of their work, how creativity and arts can be threaded into subjects. That is something we should take into account, to see how we can we use arts in a better, more formal way to promote an understanding of the intrinsic nature of the Traveller community.

Several speakers referred to amendment No. 4. There is no commencement order set out in this Bill, which means that once it was passed, there would be a requirement to provide the subject without having any preparatory work done and without consulting different people from within the Traveller community. Our concern is that we do not have any resources in place or proper professional development training for teachers. We would be telling schools that they are ready to go, even though that is not the case. That is the concern we seek to address in this amendment.

Senator Kelleher talked about the timeline, which I have already addressed. Senator Higgins referred to Fr. Micheál MacGréil, a former lecturer of mine and author of Prejudice and Tolerance in Ireland. I remember attending a class of his in 1989 at which he presented a great deal of sociological data analysis. That analysis showed that, at the time, Travellers were the group against which people in this country had the most prejudice, with the Garda in second place. I met Fr. MacGréil some years later and he was looking to do further research in that area. Prejudice and discrimination against members of the Traveller community is still a major problem in this country.

Senator Kelleher spoke about the need for momentum to implement change. I appreciate her point that we deal with a lot of legislation in these Houses which gets to a particular Stage but is not subsequently progressed. Once again, I give a personal commitment to making progress on this issue. I do not want to see another generation of young Travellers having to go through what previous generations did. I may talk presently about my personal experience of working with the Traveller community in the 1990s.

Senator Kelleher outlined a proposed amendment to section 37 of the Education Act 1998. I cannot accept such an amendment because it would raise the same issues concerning the prescribing of the curriculum in schools. The Teaching Council regulates standards for initial teacher education, subject to the policy of the Minister. The way it works is that the council sets out the standards for initial teacher education and each higher education institution then sets out its own curriculum within those parameters. What the Senator is proposing would represent a significant departure. I take her point that sometimes when one is on the rocky road trying to do something that will have a high impact, one needs to go ahead and make the change. I am reluctant to do it, however, because of the precedent it would set.

Senator Mac Lochlainn argued that we must call out the problems as they are. That is what we want to do as part of dealing with them.It is correct to state that people may not even be aware of their own commentary and that they are making racist or prejudiced remarks. Understanding is crucial here, as is trying to get a consensus regarding how to get working on righting the wrongs that have been happening. We have a responsibility to deal with issues like this, whether that is the matter we are discussing or other issues such as homophobia, ageism, racism or sexism.

Senator Byrne made reference to the meaningful way in which we have to proceed. I have an open door policy. My door is so open at the moment on this issue that I feel there is no door at all. We are not going to put on a door and we will continue to engage on the issue to see if we get a clear picture of what our destination looks like. I am happy to do that.

Senator Higgins referred to the spirit, symbolism and substantiveness of the legislation. She spoke not just about arts but also about music. We can use many vehicles to work together on a cross-subject area rather than just in a silo manner. Senator Freeman mentioned that it was important to keep the momentum going and she also spoke about young people teaching our generation. It would be remiss of me if I did not point out that we can fall into dangers when we start to group and classify people. My generation, and older, has many tolerant people. There are many people who would not like to be labelled as not emphasising tolerance, respect or dignity just because they belong to a certain generation. I refer also to the track record of our education system. We could go back some 1,500 years to St. Columbanus, to whom an inscription is dedicated in Rome. It reads "If you take away liberty, you take away dignity". It is no different regarding people's freedom to be intrinsic members of a community and a lack of respect regarding their ethnicity. Once freedom has been taken away, so has dignity. We can also learn that from our past.

I thank Senators Ó Ríordáin and Noone for their comments regarding Artane primary school. I am deviating a little now. I give a big shout out to the community whose members were so warm and welcoming this morning. I also acknowledge the trauma. The daughter of a friend and neighbour of mine works in that school. I did not meet her when I was out there, but she messaged me to say she is absolutely devastated. She is a young teacher and all of her collection of books, materials and resources are now gone and she is devastated today. As Senator Ó Ríordáin pointed out, or perhaps it was Senator Noone, there were no tragic consequences regarding what was lost in the fire. At the same time, however, it is a massive hurt. There was a new library in the school, which the community had put finance towards as well. I give my full commitment to helping everyone involved get back to where they want to be, which is in the classroom and learning.

Our own history was mentioned. One of the changes in the junior cycle history curriculum is that it will now look at local history. There is not one parish in Ireland that does not have some local historical connection to the Traveller community. I think back to my own house when a member of the Traveller community used to call around on a bicycle and visit us from time to time. That local history is very important in paving a way to breeding tolerance and instilling confidence that we are all part of one society, although ethnicity has to be respected.

I was recently in a school in Letterkenny where some 42 nationalities were represented. Senator Ó Ríordáin referred to other nationalities. When I was in that school, a young girl in fifth class stood up and made a really beautiful statement. She said, "We are an international community steeped in the tradition of Letterkenny". It was one of the most beautiful explanations of where we have gone and evolved to as a society. Within that context, we have to be fully inclusive and I know that is Senator Kelleher's end goal with this legislation.

I will conclude by referencing my own experience working with members of the Traveller community from 1997 right through to almost 1999. I remember working hard with young members of the Traveller community to try and develop a proper programme that would interest them. For some of them, that interest lay not in the homework club, not in climbing mountains, not in playing football nor in doing any of the creative arts. I stuck it out with them to find out exactly what it was they wanted. I will never forget the day when I brought them into the office and I asked them what they really wanted to do. The answer was that they wanted to go to my father's farm. We did that on three occasions and that was something that those members of the Traveller community wanted to do.

We are trying to find a space that members of the Traveller community want themselves. Senator Kelleher has done her consultation regarding the amendments I proposed. I do have my reasons, however, for putting those amendments forward. I want to move forward, facilitate and make this legislation happen. I do not want to be in any sense accused of holding it up or anything like that. I really want to work together on this and I appreciate goodwill that exists, but I do have legal and valid reasons for doing what I am doing. Let us see what happens with these amendments, as I am pressing them.